Should a leader be loved or feared?
Recently, while going through Niccolo Machiavelli’s “Prince”, I came across an interesting discussion on what should be the general attitude of the citizenry towards the president and by extension, his ministers.
The question posed, in other words, was: Between the two, which is better? Is it better for a leader to be loved or is it better for a leader to be feared?
According to Machiavelli, the answer is that one would like to be both and the other, but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than to be loved, if it cannot be both.
He further notes that “the prince must nonetheless make himself feared in such a way that if he is not loved, at least he escapes being hated.” And some of the ways suggested for the prince to avoid hatred is to avoid taking other people’s property or women.
Machiavelli’s preference of a feared leader who whips his people and nation into line unilaterally, if need be, has lots of actual and potential benefits and there is some empirical basis for such an assertion. Take a 2014 survey by the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) which, amongst others, indicated that the military was one of the most trusted institutions in Ghana.
In fact, there are some who usually look back and make statements like “this would never have happened under Rawlings.”
But the modern concept of democracy stands in sharp contrast to the reasons for the preference advanced by Machiavelli. To put a long story in simple terms, a leader in a democracy must not only be likeable but be loved by at least 50 plus one per cent of the citizenry. No one votes for another because of fear.
The voting process is no different from an aggressive advertising campaign aimed at winning over potential customers. A part of the armoury is the charm offensive. Politicians bend over backwards, sometimes at the risk of breaking their spines, just to make themselves loved.
This means that the tendency to be playing to the gallery rather than adhering to the principles behind policies is high. As a natural consequence, execution and effective implementation is compromised.
A story is told about how a “not-so-good-looking gentleman” seeking the SRC Presidency of the University of Ghana got the rude shock of his life when the ladies in Volta hall rejected his candidature in spite of previous moves by the gentleman to provide the ladies with water. The fresh and likeable guy won the day.
Don’t get me wrong. There are obvious advantages of being loved. It makes rallying and mobilisation of persons easy. But it has its own downsides. The prominent of such downsides is that leaders are scarcely decisive.
Take the need to decongest the streets of Accra for instance. Government after government has backtracked in spite of the almost universal acknowledgement of the fact that this is something that has to be done.
Governments which aim at being loved never forget the channel that brought them to power and would want to maintain that channel for as long as they can.
It is important not to lose sight of the fact that there can never be true love in politics.
As Machiavelli puts it, “friendship which is bought with money and not with greatness and nobility of mind is paid for but it does not last and it yields nothing.”
That our politics is characterised by lies and sycophancy is nothing new. Everyone dancing on a parade or campaign tour is acting in anticipation of something.
And this is made easier with the frequent introduction of money as a means of galvanising support and getting things done. Very few, if any, act in genuine service and belief of the causes they parade for.
But it should not be surprising as we are at an elementary phase of our development. But believe me; there is only one category of leader that can make this nation a happy one.
This is the leader who understands the problems the country is going through and makes firm commitments to do whatever is necessary to alleviate and improve the situation rather than the piecemeal strategies most governments delight in.
Politics is about leadership. And leadership is about conviction. Democracy is about creating space for people within the system to express themselves and function.
It is however not about one trading off his or her convictions just for votes, money or something in the nature of money.
And this is my earnest view - there is no point in a president worrying about whether he is loved or feared. His main preoccupation is to transform the lives and ensure the wellbeing of his constituents. Period!
•
